Truthers still think Muslims like in caves [Archive]

gc051360

21st March 2008, 04:41 PM

so you think the truthers are a homogenous group?

Well, they share the characteristic of making stupid arguments.

Basically, anyone who buys into 9-11 truth, has to be a person that ignores a huge amount of evidence, and has an inability to think logically.

In order to be a member of a group, they have to have some homogeneous qualities. Right? In the case of the truth movement, it seems to be a lack of intelligent thought.

eta: now that I think about it. No. It gets more complicated than that. Some are paranoid, some are just sheep etc. There are a wide range of truthers, although none of them are thinking straight. So they share the quality of not being able to think rationally, for whatever reason. Paranoia, ignorance, immaturity....you fill in the blank.

21st March 2008, 04:52 PM

Well, they share the characteristic of making stupid arguments.

Basically, anyone who buys into 9-11 truth, has to be a person that ignores a huge amount of evidence, and has an inability to think logically.

In order to be a member of a group, they have to have some homogeneous qualities. Right? In the case of the truth movement, it seems to be a lack of intelligent thought.

eta: now that I think about it. No. It gets more complicated than that. Some are paranoid, some are just sheep etc. There are a wide range of truthers, although none of them are thinking straight. So they share the quality of not being able to think rationally, for whatever reason. Paranoia, ignorance, immaturity....you fill in the blank.

a huge amount of argumentum adhominem...
well sure they all share one thing atleast, theyr disbelive of the official conspiracy theory.

and isnt it kinda ignorant to assume that such a huge group all lack rational thinking?

gc051360

21st March 2008, 04:56 PM

a huge amount of argumentum adhominem...
well sure they all share one thing atleast, theyr disbelive of the official conspiracy theory.

Which would require ignoring a huge amount of evidence, scientific opinion etc. Which would signal an inability to think rationally.

If one has a problem dealing with a rational explanation, then they show an inability to think rationally. Unless, there are other rational explanations. In this case, there are none.

and isnt it kinda ignorant to assume that such a huge group all lack rational thinking?
If the whole group seems to be centered around the belief in an irrational theory; then it's not ignorant.

WildCat

21st March 2008, 04:57 PM

and isnt it kinda ignorant to assume that such a huge group all lack rational thinking?
Not at all. The inability to think rationally is why they're truthers.

How else to explain why they believe in a conspiracy, yet can't produce a single shred of evidence supporting a conspiracy in 6 1/2 years?

leftysergeant

21st March 2008, 05:05 PM

a huge amount of argumentum adhominem...
well sure they all share one thing atleast, theyr disbelive of the official conspiracy theory.

and isnt it kinda ignorant to assume that such a huge group all lack rational thinking?

It is totally fair to state that they all share a common inability to examine the evidence from more than one emotionally-based perspective. The "cave-dwellers" arguement is proof of thet. They just cannot accept that anyone other than sophisticated plotters in electronics-filled control rooms could have done this to us.

Look what a bunch of under-nourished peasants living in tunnels in the jungle did to us in Southeast Asia about forty years ago.

21st March 2008, 05:09 PM

It is totally fair to state that they all share a common inability to examine the evidence from more than one emotionally-based perspective. The "cave-dwellers" arguement is proof of thet. They just cannot accept that anyone other than sophisticated plotters in electronics-filled control rooms could have done this to us.

Look what a bunch of under-nourished peasants living in tunnels in the jungle did to us in Southeast Asia about forty years ago.

the only thing you proved is, that you indeed think that *truthers" are a homogenous group. Just cause freaky paranoiamonger alex jones loves to shout it true his megaphone doesnt mean that respresents the truthers view.
and when you think about "truthers" do you exlude the LIHOPers?

WildCat

21st March 2008, 05:13 PM

the only thing you proved is, that you indeed think that *truthers" are a homogenous group.
This is true! Truthers are homogenous in their inability to think rationally.

and when you think about "truthers" do you exlude the LIHOPers?
No, they're idiot truthers too.

What are you, MIHOP or LIHOP? And do you have any evidence to support your position? If you have no evidence (and I have no doubt you don't) than you have demonstrated that you believe in something without any reason, and thus are not thinking rationally. It's really quite simple.

21st March 2008, 05:19 PM

This is true! Truthers are homogenous in their inability to think rationally.

No, they're idiot truthers too.

What are you, MIHOP or LIHOP? And do you have any evidence to support your position? If you have no evidence (and I have no doubt you don't) than you have demonstrated that you believe in something without any reason, and thus are not thinking rationally. It's really quite simple.

well LIHOPers do belive that 19 hijackers did 9/11 only they was not stopped, to let it happen. so you have a large group of that homogenous group that would refuse that "cave claim"

gc051360

21st March 2008, 05:23 PM

well LIHOPers do belive that 19 hijackers did 9/11 only they was not stopped, to let it happen. so you have a large group of that homogenous group that would refuse that "cave claim"

It doesn't matter if they believe the cave claim.

In order to believe something, a rational person needs proof. There is no proof for MIHOP or LIHOP, therefore anyone believing in those, is not rational.

Darth Rotor

21st March 2008, 05:26 PM

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/156011/1/#new

Isnt it a bit racist to constantly call Arab Muslims "cave dwelling Arabs"??

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were highly educated, highly sophisticated, bi-lingual individuals. They were hardly cave-men.

But I guess Truthers like repeating racist lies inorder to convince themselves.

.....forgive my horrible spelling.
I find your lack of depth disappointing, grasshopper. Osama is generally held to be living in eastern Afghanistan or Western Pakistan. Most of the folks out there aren't Arab. The Arabs living in caves, to misappropriate a phrasek, isn't even racist, it's quite simply inaccurate.

Spelling the word "live" as "like" parky, is the kind of sloppiness I associate with confused headed CT goons.

Don't let down the side, man.

DR

21st March 2008, 05:31 PM

It doesn't matter if they believe the cave claim.

In order to believe something, a rational person needs proof. There is no proof for MIHOP or LIHOP, therefore anyone believing in those, is not rational.

well for me is a huge amount of indications enough to disbelive the official theory.

i woudnt go as far and say all ppl that belive in god dont think rational. i know that is not true, even if i think it is very irational to belive in any kind of god.

edit: typos

bynmdsue

21st March 2008, 05:36 PM

well for me is a huge amount of indications enough to disbelive the official theory.

i woudnt go as far and say all ppl that belive in god dont think rational. i know that is not true, even if i think it is very irational to belive in any kind of god.

edit: typos

Exactly which typos do you think you fixed?

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 05:36 PM

conspiracy-deniers still think the truth movement is a homogeneous group?

The ones we've been seeing here recently are.

1337m4n

21st March 2008, 05:39 PM

dan from PA

21st March 2008, 05:59 PM

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 06:23 PM

...speaking of caves, remember the image popular mechanics provided us awhile back, the cave osama and the terrorist worked out of...now that was awesome, scarey for sure but awesome nonetheless, very sophisticated with multiple layers underground and passageways...sure spooked me...howsabout younz?...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/buddhaglass/netherpopup.gif

Impressive, yes, except they turned out to be totally bogus.

Sadly, the real tunnel complex at Tora Bora comprised an old man in a silly hat sitting amongst a pile of rusty rations cans in a solitary, 12ft deep cave. Countless B-52 strikes and smart missile attacks had failed to penetrate even this rather pathetic defensive position.

http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/2004/11/ernst-stavro-bin-ladenfelds.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/buddhaglass/toraboracave.jpg

defaultdotxbe

21st March 2008, 06:27 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/buddhaglass/netherpopup.gif

Impressive, yes, except they turned out to be totally bogus (http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/2004/11/ernst-stavro-bin-ladenfelds.html).
Ernst Stavro Bin Ladenfeld::dl::

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 06:37 PM

::dl::

I was thinking of James Bond, too. I didn't realize Blofeld had a Christian name. What's Dr. Evil's first name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld

defaultdotxbe

21st March 2008, 06:40 PM

I was thinking of James Bond, too. I didn't realize Blofeld had a Christian name. What's Dr. Evil's first name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld
Douglas Powers according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Evil)

dan from PA

21st March 2008, 07:16 PM

...na ahh,that wasn't bogus was it? gee, I REALLY wanted to believe it...you mean popular mechanics would try to BS me?....na ahh...it's getting so you just don't know what to believe anymore huh?...

defaultdotxbe

21st March 2008, 07:27 PM

...na ahh,that wasn't bogus was it? gee, I REALLY wanted to believe it...you mean popular mechanics would try to BS me?....na ahh...it's getting so you just don't know what to believe anymore huh?...
i never have a problem knowing what to believe and what not, maybe you should get a tune up on your BS detector

BTW when did PM use the pic? i thought it came from a london newspaper?

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 07:30 PM

...na ahh,that wasn't bogus was it? gee, I REALLY wanted to believe it...you mean popular mechanics would try to BS me?....na ahh...it's getting so you just don't know what to believe anymore huh?...

I don't know about PM but a lot of the media floated stories about massive elaborate caves in Tora Bora before the Afghan invasion. The illustration I remember (not the one I posted) was from Newsweek. A Goole image search for ‘Tora Bora Caves (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-21,GGLG:en&q=tora+bora+caves&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi)’ shows the caves to be less than impressive. I could find nothing from PM. Can you produce the image you saw in PM?

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 07:37 PM

i never have a problem knowing what to believe and what not, maybe you should get a tune up on your BS detector

BTW when did PM use the pic? i thought it came from a london newspaper?

Here's the location of the picture I used. It doesn't give the source.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78441

I'd like the see the PM picture too. Dan, can you dig the back isssue out from under your couch and do a scan?

dan from PA

21st March 2008, 09:53 PM

It is the same exact pic.

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 09:59 PM

It is the same exact pic.

You found your copy? What's the date on the cover of the magazine?

(hint: It would have been just before or just after the Afghan invasion.)

dan from PA

21st March 2008, 10:09 PM

defaultdotxbe

21st March 2008, 10:25 PM

Here's the location of the picture I used. It doesn't give the source.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78441

I'd like the see the PM picture too. Dan, can you dig the back isssue out from under your couch and do a scan?
i foudn this http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm which details the history of the "mountain fortress," uses the same graphic but doesnt mention PM

dan: whats the volume/issue number, or date, the pic appeared in PM?

EDIT: HAHA, the google-fu is strong with me
http://www.mjakbar.org/binladen.asp
This Pic is Copyright www.mjakbar.org (http://www.mjakbar.org/) If you wish, you can link from you Website but please do not Copy!

Walter Ego

21st March 2008, 10:28 PM

What's even more unbelievable is the lack of the swarm of natives around here throwing out their cute and always tremendously hilarious daggers at even the slightest doubt of the 'official story' inputs...maybe on holiday break or something...I hope it hasn't changed.

A non-answer answer. Okay. But didn’t I just confirm the existence of those fantastic caves as reported by the media was bogus?

I don't doubt you remember seeing it in PM. A lot of publications posted similar illustrations. But when the elaborate caves proved not to exist most of those publications admitted they were wrong or the speculations about such caves were false. Has any truther website or author admitted to the falsity of their baseless speculations?

dan from PA

22nd March 2008, 01:38 AM

When the images were published, it was known they did not exist but it needed to be done to help propagate the myth, to help enforce the fear. BS is BS, irregardless if you admit to it or not...

Tweeter

22nd March 2008, 02:38 AM

I`m guessing the cave dwellers in tora bora wasnt in the NIST report.
Hence the lack of knowledge.

leftysergeant

22nd March 2008, 04:10 AM

The base at which the terrorists were being trained was not at Tora Bora.

Remember that these were all Arabs and Muslims. They are taught to live simply, and that their wealth is to be at the displosal of God. Our own Army spends a great deal of time training out in the boondocks. Real soldiers and guerilla fighters do not make a habit of living in opulent homes, you know.

Most of the hijackers were better-educated than the average twoofer.

(That might explain a thing or two, actually.)

22nd March 2008, 06:53 AM

oh more argumentum ad hominem from fefty :)

i came here cause i heard alot educated ppl here, critical thinkers, open minds and so on.
but till now i see no sign of that.

btw who created that drawing from ToraBora? looks like its the same guy that made those "evidence" drawings of iraqi WMD trucks lol

22nd March 2008, 06:55 AM

Hi PDoherty.

How's it been? You haven't been around here in awhile.

i guess your misstaken.or you are a little paranoid.

Travis

22nd March 2008, 07:49 AM

The very idea of Cheney becoming a dictator is rather amusing. Most people in the military I know think Bush is incompetent and Cheney is just evil (they also hate Hillary but rather like Obama). So I really don't see the military coming to assist him in seizing power which leaves one to wonder how he might become a "dictator?"

Also I am not surprised to see the ignorant "Arabs in Caves" meme return. Stupid and/or wrong ideas are like cockroaches, they flourish when you don't pay attention to them, flee from light/scrutiny and you just can't seem to get rid of them.

22nd March 2008, 08:18 AM

the whole idea of an US dictator is just crazy, a sick idea.
but it wasnt my idea, its the idea of the guys that setup NSPD-51, Patriot Act 1 and 2 and so on.

and after the mushroomcloud also the US army will be feared enough to blindly follow.
fear is a mighty weapon.

gtc

22nd March 2008, 08:22 AM

Which mushroom cloud would that be?

Also what is NSPD-51?

22nd March 2008, 08:27 AM

Which mushroom cloud would that be?

Also what is NSPD-51?

the one mushroomcloud they warned you about. the one smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

and you dont know NSPD-51? i think this is not only important for the US, but for the whole world, because the US government like to play world government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

22nd March 2008, 08:29 AM

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

WildCat

22nd March 2008, 09:32 AM

and you dont know NSPD-51? i think this is not only important for the US, but for the whole world, because the US government like to play world government.
You obviously don't have the slightest idea what that is about.

Travis

22nd March 2008, 09:51 AM

the whole idea of an US dictator is just crazy, a sick idea.
but it wasnt my idea, its the idea of the guys that setup NSPD-51, Patriot Act 1 and 2 and so on.

Yeah the idea of the government continuing to work during a catastrophe is such a bad idea.:rolleyes:

and after the mushroomcloud also the US army will be feared enough to blindly follow.
fear is a mighty weapon.

The mushroom cloud comes from what? The Army controls land based ICBMs, the Navy controls the SLBMs and the Air Force has the gravity bombs. I'm not particularly sure how you could use a nuclear weapon without the cooperation of the military.

22nd March 2008, 09:58 AM

You obviously don't have the slightest idea what that is about.

enlighten me

22nd March 2008, 10:02 AM

Yeah the idea of the government continuing to work during a catastrophe is such a bad idea.:rolleyes:

The mushroom cloud comes from what? The Army controls land based ICBMs, the Navy controls the SLBMs and the Air Force has the gravity bombs. I'm not particularly sure how you could use a nuclear weapon without the cooperation of the military.

the idea of government continuing is a very good idea, a very important plan.

the idea to keep that plan hidden is not a very good one. not very democratic.

and how much controll do they have about theyr own nukes?

defaultdotxbe

22nd March 2008, 10:17 AM

the idea to keep that plan hidden is not a very good one. not very democratic.
it cant be hidden very well if we are discussing it here....

16.5

22nd March 2008, 10:31 AM

so you think the truthers are a homogenous group?

Noscitur e sociis.

22nd March 2008, 10:32 AM

it cant be hidden very well if we are discussing it here....

Continuity Annexes do say what exactly?

22nd March 2008, 10:34 AM

Noscitur e sociis.

was this also your first thaught when you saw Bush meeting the Saudis?

16.5

22nd March 2008, 10:47 AM

was this also your first thaught when you saw Bush meeting the Saudis?

No, but it was when I saw a post from a Truther linking to a site quoting a holocaust denier.

22nd March 2008, 10:50 AM

No, but it was when I saw a post from a Truther linking to a site quoting a holocaust denier.

why that double standard?

chillzero

22nd March 2008, 10:57 AM

Two things.
Stop making accusations of sockpuppets in threads - report them to the mods with any evidence. Don't cause bickering or derailing over this, and don't personalise the discussion in such a manner.

Also, please post on topic.

22nd March 2008, 11:13 AM

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/156011/1/#new

Isnt it a bit racist to constantly call Arab Muslims "cave dwelling Arabs"??

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were highly educated, highly sophisticated, bi-lingual individuals. They were hardly cave-men.

But I guess Truthers like repeating racist lies inorder to convince themselves.

.....forgive my horrible spelling.

ok back to topic

Isnt it a bit racist to constantly call Arab Muslims "cave dwelling Arabs"??

i fully agree with that. when you take a closer look at the countrys in the middle eastern area you can clearly see that there are very diffrent countrys and ppl just like everywhere in the world. a colorfull spectrum of induviduals and groups.
such a generalisation would just be "uninformed"

But I guess Truthers like repeating racist lies inorder to convince themselves.

this is a nice example of such a "uninformed" generalisation.
"truthers" aka twoofers troofers
a colorfull group of ppl that have very diffrent thoerys and "political sides" or educational "levels".
the one thing they all share a disbelive in the official theory about 9/11

Travis

22nd March 2008, 11:14 AM

the idea of government continuing is a very good idea, a very important plan.

the idea to keep that plan hidden is not a very good one. not very democratic.

and how much controll do they have about theyr own nukes?

Sometimes governments have secrets. Does Groom Lake prove that we are on the path to a dictatorship too?

16.5

22nd March 2008, 11:25 AM

why that double standard?

I am sure that it is not a double standard.

22nd March 2008, 11:26 AM

Sometimes governments have secrets. Does Groom Lake prove that we are on the path to a dictatorship too?

no way, oc they want to have a secret place to test theyr secret airplanes and other things. but since the time of spy satelites, it is very questional how good can you hide something like that from the enemy anyway :)

and a secret has not always to be something bad. every year it was a sectret what my birthday-present will be. mostly it turned out to be a good secrect :)

but sometimes the outsome of a secret is not so "nice" at all.
when its just about a birthdaypresent, its ok, but when it comes about the way your country is governed.

well i for my part would like to know my "bithdaypresent" before its birthday. in that case i dont want no bad suprises, especially when it depemds on secret laws of, either the idiot or the evil guy.

Blender Head

22nd March 2008, 11:26 AM

the idea to keep that plan hidden is not a very good one. not very democratic.

The plan is so well hidden the execuitive branch of government places it on its flagship website!

22nd March 2008, 11:36 AM

The plan is so well hidden the execuitive branch of government places it on its flagship website!

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

oh sorry, so the classidied Continuity Annexes have been declassified?
im sorry, i must have missed that lol.
and what did it turned out to say axactly?

DavidJames

22nd March 2008, 11:41 AM

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

oh sorry, so the classidied Continuity Annexes have been declassified?
im sorry, i must have missed that lol.
and what did it turned out to say axactly?

Your inability to construct a sentence, lack of punctuation and poor spelling make it very for me to understand what you are trying to say. I suggest you find an adult to proof read your posts before you submit them?

22nd March 2008, 11:49 AM

Your inability to construct a sentence, lack of punctuation and poor spelling make it very for me to understand what you are trying to say. I suggest you find an adult to proof read your posts before you submit them?

oh the lack of my english spelling is blatant, i know. but i assumed it would be good enough already to make a point. but if you dont get it yet, i sure can try to write it in another way so you maybe get it. or i could mail it in another language, what other languages do you speak? maybe we share one i can spell better.

Blender Head

22nd March 2008, 12:16 PM

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

oh sorry, so the classidied Continuity Annexes have been declassified?
im sorry, i must have missed that lol.
and what did it turned out to say axactly?

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't speak Woo.

Care to phrase that in some form of English?

22nd March 2008, 12:23 PM

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't speak Woo.

Care to phrase that in some form of English?

seems like alot ppl have problems understand what they read :)

but short and simple.

are the classidied Continuity Annexes ,declassified meanwhile?

Arus808

22nd March 2008, 01:14 PM

defaultdotxbe

22nd March 2008, 01:41 PM

and what does it matter? why should the govt make public everything they do? the one thing about govt is that there are secrets. however, having secret doesn't mean they are planning to kill us, or take over the world. It takes a special kind of lunacy to believe that
having a secret does unfortunately give the CTers carte blanche to envision whatever they want, with the inability of anyone to prove them wrong (thus proving them right by some progression of logic ive yet to comprehend)

22nd March 2008, 01:51 PM

and what does it matter? why should the govt make public everything they do? the one thing about govt is that there are secrets. however, having secret doesn't mean they are planning to kill us, or take over the world. It takes a special kind of lunacy to believe that

i doesnt mather to you?
isnt it very naiv to assume that "theyr secrets" are always in "your interest" ?
i know that is theyr job, or atleast, should be.

blind faith
well sorry, but i dont like it when ppl that work for me have secrets wich do involve my future. well im not from the US, but i assume you are, and i realy wonder why you have so much blind faith into "them".

22nd March 2008, 01:53 PM

and what does it matter? why should the govt make public everything they do? the one thing about govt is that there are secrets. however, having secret doesn't mean they are planning to kill us, or take over the world. It takes a special kind of lunacy to believe that

i doesnt mather to you?
isnt it very naiv to assume that "theyr secrets" are always in "your interest" ?
i know that is theyr job, or atleast, should be.

blind faith
well sorry, but i dont like it when ppl that work for me have secrets wich do involve my future. well im not from the US, but i assume you are, and i realy wonder why you have so much blind faith into "them".

defaultdotxbe

22nd March 2008, 01:56 PM

i doesnt mather to you?
isnt it very naiv to assume that "theyr secrets" are always in "your interest" ?
i know that is theyr job, or atleast, should be.

blind faith
well sorry, but i dont like it when ppl that work for me have secrets wich do involve my future. well im not from the US, but i assume you are, and i realy wonder why you have so much blind faith into "them".
isnt it just as blind to assume secrets are always contrary to your interests?

and for the record, i dont assume the government is always working in my best interest, i do however assume that the system of checks and blanaces in place between all 3 branches of the government and the people themselves will ultimately work in the best interests of the people

22nd March 2008, 02:21 PM

isnt it just as blind to assume secrets are always contrary to your interests?

and for the record, i dont assume the government is always working in my best interest, i do however assume that the system of checks and blanaces in place between all 3 branches of the government and the people themselves will ultimately work in the best interests of the people

exactly to this :

the system of checks and blanaces in place between all 3 branches of the government and the people themselves will ultimately work in the best interests of the people

there could be a great danger to that. COULD be, i dont say it is

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=WivB-Qr8mPo

defaultdotxbe

22nd March 2008, 02:28 PM

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=WivB-Qr8mPo
the bush admin brought us katrina? and here i thought hurricanes were naturally occurring phenomena...

BenBurch

22nd March 2008, 02:43 PM

so you think the truthers are a homogenous group?

Well, I propose an experiment;

We thoroughly blend several truthers in each of two industrial blenders.

Into the control batch we add nothing.

Into the test batch we add 1 oz per ten lbs lecithin.

Then refrigerate for 72 hours.

If Truthers are homogenous, then neither sample will have separated.

If they need only a little help to be homogenous then the lecithin batch will not have separated.

If both have separated, then, indeed, Truthers are not homogenous.

22nd March 2008, 02:44 PM

the bush admin brought us katrina? and here i thought hurricanes were naturally occurring phenomena...

well im not so good in english, but didnt he mean the bad organisation of help and cleanup work? im pretty sure he does not assume that they created kathrina.

22nd March 2008, 02:50 PM

Well, I propose an experiment;

We thoroughly blend several truthers in each of two industrial blenders.

Into the control batch we add nothing.

Into the test batch we add 1 oz per ten lbs lecithin.

Then refrigerate for 72 hours.

If Truthers are homogenous, then neither sample will have separated.

If they need only a little help to be homogenous then the lecithin batch will not have separated.

If both have separated, then, indeed, Truthers are not homogenous.

you mix together diffrent probe sammples? :/ isnt that influencing the test results? doesnt sound accurate.

Architect

22nd March 2008, 03:06 PM

well im not so good in english, but didnt he mean the bad organisation of help and cleanup work? im pretty sure he does not assume that they created kathrina.

DC

Gang canny, as a typical sock puppet ploy is to use crap English to try and throw people off the scent, especially (say) just missing out punctuation rather than issues of lexicon and vocabulary. Hence you might find statements such as your opening line misinterpreted by the more suspicious amongst us.

And before you ask, English isn't my first tongue. Tha ghaidhlig agamsa, 'is tha mise Albanach. 'S math sin.

Bobert

22nd March 2008, 03:10 PM

oh more argumentum ad hominem from fefty :)
Hmmm he seems to be very articulate and to the point.

i came here cause i heard alot educated ppl here, critical thinkers, open minds and so on.
but till now i see no sign of that.
Because you DO NOT want to see that

btw who created that drawing from ToraBora? looks like its the same guy that made those "evidence" drawings of iraqi WMD trucks lol[/quote]

SHOCKING that one who belongs to a movement that fabricates, lies, distorts the facts would then turn around and accuse someone else of this

22nd March 2008, 03:15 PM

Hmmm he seems to be very articulate and to the point.

Because you DO NOT want to see that

[/QUOTE]

no prolly bacause i keep geting responses like yours :)

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd March 2008, 03:19 PM

well im not so good in english, but didnt he mean the bad organisation of help and cleanup work?

There was actually very little "bad organization of help" in the response to hurricane Katrina. In fact, one of the oldest and most respected science and technology magazines in the country (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2) investigated this claim and came up with the following:

MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

defaultdotxbe

22nd March 2008, 03:29 PM

well im not so good in english, but didnt he mean the bad organisation of help and cleanup work? im pretty sure he does not assume that they created kathrina.
im sure thats what he meant (even though it wasnt the federal governments responsibility at the time) but thats not what he said

Tweeter

22nd March 2008, 05:53 PM

1927
On April 29, with dangerously rising floodwaters in the Mississippi threatening to overwhelm New Orleans, Louisiana's governor orders the Army Corps of Engineers to dynamite a levee along St. Bernard Parish, allowing floodwaters to drain across the parish's rural neighborhoods and wetlands to Lake Borgne and the Gulf of Mexico. New Orleans proper is saved, but the parish is devastated. More than 200 people die and 700,000 are left homeless. The disaster marks the end of the levees-only policy; as one writer puts it, "a policy had been breached and the pouring waters were sweeping an era away."

Arus808

22nd March 2008, 05:56 PM

and what does Levees in New Orleans have to do with the racist attitudes of the truth movement, who continue to believe that "muslims" are "stupid" and can only live in "caves"?

Tweeter

22nd March 2008, 06:00 PM

heh, i needed another avatar so i googled troother for a good image of one and on the second page was thishttp://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/uploads/photo-thumb-1744.jpg

DGM

22nd March 2008, 07:15 PM

heh, i needed another avatar so i googled troother for a good image of one and on the second page was thishttp://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/uploads/photo-thumb-1744.jpg
Hey, You never know what you'll find. When you Google "FEMA death camp" you used to see my avatar (and my screen name)! BAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sword_Of_Truth

22nd March 2008, 11:58 PM

heh, i needed another avatar

Kudos to you for having the sense and reason to replace the previous avatar.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

23rd March 2008, 12:13 AM

the only thing you proved is, that you indeed think that *truthers" are a homogenous group. Just cause freaky paranoiamonger alex jones loves to shout it true his megaphone doesnt mean that respresents the truthers view.
and when you think about "truthers" do you exlude the LIHOPers?
hey! let's hear what you have to say about 9/11.

23rd March 2008, 04:52 AM

hey! let's hear what you have to say about 9/11.

9/11? i think we quickly need new independent investigations, transparent , no secrets, all public. into full detail.

Travis

23rd March 2008, 05:37 AM

9/11? i think we quickly need new independent investigations, transparent , no secrets, all public. into full detail.

First question: why?

Second question: by whom?

Third question: how?

Fourth question: what if it validates all the previous investigations?

23rd March 2008, 05:46 AM

1. cause the CIA, stonewalled the 9/11 commission, NORAD lied to the 9/11 commission, most of the families questions was not answered and so on

2. i would like a big international group of experts and investigators without any conflicts of interest.

3. how?

4. what if not?

TheRedWorm

23rd March 2008, 05:57 AM

1. "How?" is not a legitimate answer to question 3.

2. Your answer to number 2, expand on it. How big? Experts on what? What type of investigators (media, intelligence agencies, police, etc.)? How would one determine that there were no conflicts of interest?

3. You dodged question 4.

23rd March 2008, 06:14 AM

i dont know what is ment with question 3.

and 4.

well i for my part will then accpet that result.
and you? will you accept it when it exposes something else?

2 is something that has to be worked out by more than jsut one guy :)
many diffrent experts from very diffrent fields, ppl that can handle blackboxdata, ppl that invastigate the remaining debris from the WTC, the dust samples, ppl that hold hearings , ppl that investigate money traces and ppl that investigate the plane wrecks and so on.

TheRedWorm

23rd March 2008, 06:24 AM

i dont know what is ment with question 3.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that he means how as in; How would you be able to organize and start an investigation? Saying that you want one is fine, but to have an investigation takes capitol, time, a reason, and people to investigate. The reason is (relatively) clear, but how do you get the money, and how do you compel people to do this investigation?

and 4.

well i for my part will then accpet that result.
and you? will you accept it when it exposes something else?

I don't think the correct sentence is "when it exposes..." rather it sould be "if it exposes..." Aside from that, yes. If your new, truly independent investigation, carried out by top professionals commenting on subjects that fall under their relevant fields concludes that 9/11 was an inside job, then I will accept that.

2 is something that has to be worked out by more than jsut one guy :)
many diffrent experts from very diffrent fields, ppl that can handle blackboxdata, ppl that invastigate the remaining debris from the WTC, the dust samples, ppl that hold hearings , ppl that investigate money traces and ppl that investigate the plane wrecks and so on.

Would it be fair to use the research already done on and after 9/11. Because much of the investigating that you mention was already done post 9/11, and further more, looking for physical evidence now would most likely result in failure.

Architect

23rd March 2008, 06:26 AM

Architect

23rd March 2008, 06:29 AM

2. i would like a big international group of experts and investigators without any conflicts of interest.

I'm sure that you're a sock puppet, but I'll bite anyway.

The key issue is your final comment, about "conflicts of interest".

Tall buildings design is a relatively small field, where many of us are linked.

For example the structural design leaders in the UK, and amongst the top 5 or so in the world, are Arup. Arup work for the US (and other governments) and took part in the NIST study. Nevertheless they have been critical of some aspects of the official findings, and have published a paper to that effect. So do you count them in, or out? And if out, you lose a lot of the real expertise.

So let me turn this the other way round. Who do you specifically consider acceptable to provide expert technical advice and analysis to any second inquiry?

23rd March 2008, 07:59 AM

Cheney

I have to be honest. Your spelling looks exactly like someone pretending to be a non-English speaker. The syntax and sentence structure are correct, but these are the areas learners normally get wrong.

Come clean, mate.

thats interesting, your the 2nd person that says that. but in fact i am foreigner, and never had higher english lessons. but grew up with english/US music. for a long time i lived in a country where you had the original sound with subtitles in cinemas, so mostly english.

thx, i take it as a compliment.

i come from a country with 4 languages and english is not one of them.

johnny karate

23rd March 2008, 01:40 PM

i would like a big international group of experts and investigators without any conflicts of interest.

I'd be curious to know from what specific fields of knowledge these "experts" would be culled.

Considering that in over six years, all of the relevant fields (i.e structural engineering, demolitions) have yielded effectively zero dissent from the official version of events, I don't think you'll get much of a turnout from anyone that will be taken seriously.

24th March 2008, 03:14 AM

I'd be curious to know from what specific fields of knowledge these "experts" would be culled.

Considering that in over six years, all of the relevant fields (i.e structural engineering, demolitions) have yielded effectively zero dissent from the official version of events, I don't think you'll get much of a turnout from anyone that will be taken seriously.

ppl that dare speack against the holy official story are nuts and not experts anyway.

johnny karate

24th March 2008, 09:35 PM

ppl that dare speack against the holy official story are nuts and not experts anyway.

Yeah, pretty much.

But that's beside the point. Science is science, and math is math. They don't lie. If you've got these things on your side, personal feelings and politics are irrelevant.

Speaking of which, you didn't really address the issue I raised. In fact, you've only made my argument stronger.

Since 9/11, there has been absolutely no outcry from the relevant fields of expertise for a new investigation, and according to you, anyone that does dare raise a dissenting voice is immediately written off as a fool and a loon.

So considering that, who would these experts in this new investigation be, and what hope can there be that they will offer a different hypothesis from the official one, or be taken seriously if they do?